Councilors would levy new 1% tax on Boston property owners for affordable housing, parks

If all the residents of the city teamed-up and incorporated, then we could get the same tax breaks as GE! I think it is also ironic to see our council members worried about open space and parks, while the folks over at the BRA are constantly approving developments that further congest the city & tax (no pun intended) an already aging infrastructure. Typically, part of the developer's costs of such projects, like the recently proposed ones in West Roxbury have allocations that are supposed to go towards more affordable housing, not to mention green space improvements. Let's not forget the amounts collected (off the tax rolls) that all our esteemed universities contribute in lieu of taxes... where does the money really go? Anyone for a 1% property tax to help-out the T?

I'd be okay with this if there was some kind of hard, established plan to actually use the money. What will most likely happen is it gets passed, the money gets collected, stuck in a fund somewhere, and nobody knows what it's doing or if anything's happening with it. The BRA already has a fund that developers pay penalties into that's supposed to go towards affordable housing that does NOTHING and has no accountability attached to it. This is just going to be the same thing, except run by the city, so the two agencies couldn't even pool it together.

And open space, what exactly does this mean?

Just want to double-triple-confirm here:
Is this a 1% tax on the *assessed value of the property*? Or a 1% increase on the actual tax bill amount (which is what I read it as)? Because the latter I would support, but the former ... no effing way.

While a 1% tax hike for homeowners for a worthy outcome of more affordable housing etc. seems like a fair enough price to pay for those of us who are fortunate enough to own homes, I continue to wonder why the developers who are marketing the zillion dollar condos and rental units continue to receive corporate welfare that is called tax incentives. The marketing tools used to sell these properties are quick access to public transportation, public parks, high end restaurants etc. The taxpayer is subsidizing the MBTA debt and is now being asked to contribute yet more to keep our city vibrant and attractive to the folks who are displacing so many from their homes. GE, Millenium Partners et al could go a long way in making a dent in the T's financial woes. Just sayin'

tenants of properties in Boston whom will likely have landlords pass that off on to them. Many of which are already having a hard time not being priced out of neighborhoods.

1. Speed up the permitting process. ISD continues to take unreasonably long amounts of time to issue long form building permits.

2. Eliminate details. These details are paid by developers (and utility and governments as well). They are an unecessary drain on the cost of building (besides a legal form of graft).

3. Is the development process genuinely competitive? In some areas it's not. Guarranteed wages through union contracts prevent wage competition. While this does not favor union members it favors decreasing the costs of building housing. Are developers acting in a competitive environment or is the development process itself solidified by guarranteed costs (details, union rates, permitting costs and developer's profits) that there is room for competition?

4. Determine where the monies raised from rentals for yearly registrations is going. Is this money used to improve ISD? See item 1 to answer that question. Therefore where is this money going to?

Why this 1% bump is dubious.

Walsh, BRA et al. have demonstrated have no interest in historic preservation. Destruction of the Home for Little Wanderers and the upcoming destruction of the Old North Avenue bridge demonstrate this point.

What is the plan for directing the extra funds? None other than vague claims of improving this or that. What prevents the funds from being used for election year improvements: repaving roads that don't need repavement and calling that historic preservation? Pouring money into replacing sidewalks that are fine and claiming that is improving open spaces?

Considering that many home owners took a hit on their incomes by having to pay more in absolute dollars in their property taxes the timing of this suggestion suggests the Coucilors are tone deaf to the needs of constituents who will be hit by first the increase in property taxes - that includes home owners and renters in buildings where the property taxe is already at full boat (landlords who are making a profit will not sacrifice the profit to pay additional taxes - they will increase the rents, and possibly by a larger per centage since the point is to earn a profit).

I want to expand on my previous post (2nd anon up top--2/9 at 626).
So yes, of course the tax increase is due to the City finally getting their acts together and assessing properties at their actual market rate.
and yes its great my home has increased in value, but it does me no good unless I try to sell. And it doesnt end up helping if Im trying to buy another home anyway.

But here is the important issue, the City is receiving 25 to 40% more funding for many, many, many areas of the City. Why is nobody talking about this increased revenue and how the City plans to use it. and why the F are they trying to ask for MORE and not being called out on it???!!!

Help me understand this. By raising the cost of owning a home will make it cheaper to live here?

We pay an enormous amount in taxes already. While some may say well then you must be rich, it's just not true.
I haven't moved in years but my neighborhood has increased in value tremendously. It's a double-edged sword. We're happy to have a nice nest egg, but the taxes are becoming unaffordable. I don't want a Florida of CA system but I think relying on the property tax is regressive and hurts long term residents who find themselves in gentrifying neighborhoods. . I'm all for increasing the housing supply but this is not the way to do it.